Edited your threads then?The only post I even mention anything about a 273 in this thread is post #65 answering your post #56, and I clearly state when taken to the max a 273 can't be spun high enough to out perform a 408.
No worries....
Edited your threads then?The only post I even mention anything about a 273 in this thread is post #65 answering your post #56, and I clearly state when taken to the max a 273 can't be spun high enough to out perform a 408.
Wow, what happened to my thread? Maybe I should start another. Wow.
Wow, what happened to my thread? Maybe I should start another. Wow.
Make another thread or don't, just keep us updated. I've been watching this one to see a 318 build not a shitshow.Wow, what happened to my thread? Maybe I should start another. Wow.
How does stroke increase HP ??
Bore only can increase hp cause it allows more air flow, nothing to do with increased displacement.
Would a identical built 340/360 have the same cylinder pressure ??
and if they did stock bore, 4.04" vs 4", the 340 piston would have more surface area so it would have more force driving the piston down,
if both where stroked to give each the same displacement the 4.04" bore would have slightly less stroke multiplying the slightly higher force,
which should theoretically equal out. But since they don't have same displacements 340 vs 360 and at similar VE% the 360 will have less force on the piston but have lot more multiplying "stroke" on that force,
Slightly confusing. Two engines of the same displacement, 1 short stroke big bore, the other, small bore big stroke, should equal torque and HP. But it doesn't. It's close though.ie.. more displacement more torque. Not cause of stroke cause of overall displacement. But that is obviously just torque, so yes an increase of stroke on any given bore is gonna increase displacement ie.. torque but keeping everything else equal is gonna decrease powerband rpm, which should put you at similar hp output.
Answered below.So how does stroke in it's self increase hp ?
The larger the stroke over the OE stroke, the larger the displacement. The longer stroke takes in more air and fuel. Thus increasing the explosiveness within the cylinder. This creates more torque and HP.
Therefore, your statement of “Bore only increases HP” is false. Increasing ether will increase displacement and torque to equal HP.
Not true. The longer stroke engine normally, not always, makes peak power earlier.For your theory to be true the engine with the increased stroke you have make peak power at a similar rpm as the non stroked engine eg... 360 vs 408.
Speaking theoretically....Say for my 360 create engine is suppose to dyno around 400 hp at 5400 rpm, if stroked it to a 402 keeping everything else the same.
It would have peak hp at a lower rpm?
How much lower 400-600 rpms lower ?
more/less ?
If say it's around 4835 rpm (Why 4835? Cant we just use round numbvers? WTF? Is this your exact engine?)
peak hp for the 408 both would have the same cid to rpm would be proportional for both engines and both would have similar power give or take the exact effect on those combos.
Not saying it would play out where power is always gonna be identical. True stroke is gonna add displacement there for each power stroke is gonna have more fuel and air there for more torque, But torque is just basically a snap shot of that power stroke, hp is all those power strokes added up.
For someone to change his mind on a subject, the other has to make a compelling or at least any argument, you yet to do either, not like you have to, but there's no reason to change my mind cause no one has said anything resembling a point.
I get that and have said exactly that multiple times so far and agree with what you have just said .... Yes adding stroke or any means of displacement is gonna increase torque to a given combination.
Cost of RPM where? More cam? You just moved the curve upwards. Added stroke? You added low rpm power.But here's where i seem to differ from you guys, "RPM" to me rpm is on par with Torque, and yes adding displacement is gonna add torque but it's gonna come at the cost of RPM.
Yes it is wrong. More torque will allways equal more HP.So more torque by adding displacement and lowering rpm powerband doesn't necessarily mean more power "hp". Is this last statement wrong ?
This has been my whole point.
No he is not but you are in the way you present the issue which is not in the same way he does.
Or let’s put it this way... answer me this!
How can a 273 engine make more power than a 318/340/360/408/ etc... when all are equipped for maximum return?
That’s the angle he played and Adamantly stood on. Now he’s slowly and 20 and twisting his point of you in the direction of the argument to come to his favor.
Then once you agree with the statement, he says, see I was right!
That's not even close to my point, you seem to be disagreeing with me on something i never said.
And my point ain't changing or evolving, far is I'm concern the argument is if added stroke in it's self creates HP,
We all know stroke will add torque to a given combo but does it also add hp? , I say no and far as I understand you say yes.
I say no cause there's no added flow being introduced to the combo ie.. heads cam carb etc.. and even though were adding torque to said combo there will be a decrease in rpm, torque x rpm/5252 = hp, so "more torque" times "less rpm" is at least somewhat gonna cancel each other.
As for name calling bringing up can't fix stupid in a comment were you talking about me is gonna come off as an insult.
This isn't me changing my point of view but in that question they all won't make the same power, take the two extremes displacements 273 vs 408 at the same piston speed of 4000 fpm, so 273 would be at 7250 rpm and a 408 would at 6000 rpm.
Could build for higher piston speeds but ratios will be the same between the two engines. So a 273 would displace 573 cfm of air at 7250 rpm at 100% VE and a 408 would displace 708 cfm. When taking things to the max, smaller bore can't spin high enough over come the larger bore but compare a .030 over 360, so 365 at 4000 fpm would be at 6704 rpm and would displace 708 cfm's on pare with the 408. At that point now you would have to argue fictional hp loss rod ratio benefits etc..
Bumblefish360 maybe you should stop cause your embarrassing yourself.
You like to say how I'm and others are wrong, but you obviously have no clue what anyone is talking about, this conversation has never been about a 273 vs whatever, easy to think your right when you make up what the conversation is about.
This Youtube video just came up on my feed, it comes up with contradicting results, but interesting none the less.
It's very similar Chevy 302 vs 327 vs 350 Dyno results, and 4.8l vs 5.3l results, there's a 6.0l but it's cam and heads are different than the other two. 350 has a slightly milder cam but everything else is the same.
302, 357 hp @ 6700, 333 lb-ft @ 4400, 1.18 hp per cid, 1.1 lb-ft per cid, 585 cfm
327, 356 hp @ 6100, 369 lb-ft @ 4100, 1.08 hp per cid, 1.13 lb-ft per cid, 577 cfm
350, 354 hp @ 5400, 391 lb-ft @ 4000, 1.01 hp per cid, 1.12 lb-ft per cid, 547 cfm
4.8l, 336 hp @ 5600, 345 lb-ft @ 4700, 1.14 hp per cid, 1.17 lb-ft per cid, 475 cfm
5.3l, 353 hp @ 5200, 384 lb-ft @ 4300, 1.09 hp per cid, 1.18 lb-ft per cid, 489 cfm
With the 302 vs 327 vs 350 goes along with what I'm saying for similar top end hp is gonna be about the same hp and peak hp rpm and the powerband is gonna be proportional to engine size. The 302 vs 327 match that theory but 350 falls a little flat, should be more like 5700-5800 not 5400 it is but it does have a smaller cam and the hp curve is super flat though out 5100-5900 rpm, to me any minor timing or carb adjustments peak could be moved anywhere between the two.
Obviously torque is different overall but per cid it's fairly narrow. But if you geared these engines to where your right in the sweet spot for each, about plus 500-700 rpm per mph as you go from 350 to 327 to 302, you can see the 327 would be at higher hp level then the 350 and the 302 be above both through out most or all the powerband going down the track, would of been nice if he overlap the hp curves. So anyways with these examples I'd say 302 would best track car and 350 best street car. Either way very similar performance from similar parts but very different displacements.
As of what to make of the 4.8l vs 5.3l results I'd say 17 hp isn't the biggest difference tha'ts a 0.05 per cid difference, you could make the argument it's from stroke to me I'd guess more from heads and cam preferring the 5.3l.
AND now you have discovered what I have been saying all along!
TOLD YA SO!
AND now you have discovered what I have been saying all along!
TOLD YA SO!
And to dispute it is .......Horsepower is KING.
How do you come away with I told you so with that video
The 302 vs 327 vs 350 practically follow what I’ve been saying 100 % similar Top end is gonna make very similar power and bottom end, overall displacement, bore and stroke and rod ratios will decide where that power will be made “rpm” and it will be proportional to displacement.
if You find my previous statements a mumble jumble mess, this what I’ve being trying to say.
Add, with geared right they all should have similar performance.
Now the 4.8l vs 5.3l it doesn’t follow what I’ve been saying exactly, same top end wiith a difference of 17 hp (0.05 hp per cid) and engine masters did Mopar 410 vs 367 and there was a 8.5 hp (0.02 hp per cid). And engine masters did 383 Chev vs 383 Mopar both made similar peak torque and hp but the shorter stroke Mopar made way more under 4000 rpm torque, I know that’s not an apples to apples comparison but does fly in conventional wisdom of a longer stroke making more down low torque.
I’d argue other things come into play here and these Hp gains are small. But even if it is just cause of added stroke, The finial conclusion would have to be from these is, Adding stroke “displacement “ only sometimes adds hp and when it does not much. Not I told you so lol.
Yopur not on the exact same page as we are. I under stand what your saying.I should be home Wednesday and I will post what Harold Bettes has said, which follows every single dyno test I’ve ever done. Torque doesn’t make HP. RPM does. Why does every single competitive engine use HP as a measure? How can a guy like Ben Strader say he doesn’t much care about peak torque because the engine operates above peak torque?
Did we just watch the same video you posted where the longer stroke engine made more low RPM torque thus rasing the HP level at allpoints except the very top where the longer arm always drops off? Thus proving me correct, you wrong. Across the board, more torque and HP was shown on the graphs save the top end. This is what I have been ssaying and yes, it is I told you so.
Your the only one accounting for gearing trying to broadened the argument.
Since you know that a smaller engine is weaker in torque, you do other things accordingly to adjust for the goal. This is a no brainer! Why even bring it up? It’s ridiculous!!!!!! Moronic!!! Has no place in the talk. It’s so insane, it’s freakin mental!!!!
Bring it up is in my eyes just a way to wiggle out of your loss and twist the topic into a more favorable position for yourself to do what? Save face? WTF is wrong with you?
Oh wait! I already answered that!
YOUR MENTAL!!!!
Dude! YOU proved yourself wrong!
Not me!
Holy Jez!!!!!!!
Oh, I think I get it......So how does stroke in it's self increase hp ?
Oh, I think I get it......
Are you saying withe two engines of equal displacement?
I thought we were talking about throwing a long arm into an engine and then doing a before and after.
But the issue here was they used STOCK turd edelbrock heads. The 360 was already at or near maxing the head flow out.I mean either really, that dyno of the 302 vs 327 vs 350 made practically the same hp within 3 hp of each other, engine masters done a 410 vs 367 with 8.5 hp difference, no real sign of stroke adding hp to combos.
That's less then 0.02 hp per cid gain or loss in any direction.
And torque is generally equalled out if everything is geared right.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/stock-vs-stroked-horsepower-test-engine-masters-ep-18/
the longer stroke engine made more low RPM torque thus rasing the HP level at allpoints except the very top where the longer arm always drops off?
This here is a good measuring stick between a 340 and a 360.
Having built a 360 with several different cams, but always at same pressure,and most of the time with 3.55s; I see now that the 3.58 stroke is over powering my tires and chassis no matter which cam it was running. Over the years I have become more tolerant of the 3.31 stroke engines, and next time out I think I will experiment on a 340.
As I have found out, the 360, for my application really is overkill, and I wouldn't mind a lil less torque out of the gate. I know I will be giving up power throughout the most-used part of the powerband, but that's OK, my 360 has too much anyway.
To get some top-end back, I will rethink my cam requirements, and swap to an SFT design.
I will continue to use my GVod as a splitter, and continue to use the Commando box. As for gears; I'll just throw some 3.23s back in there...... for now. lol. Why? Because 60mph=5750 in First-over, maxing out my average power in two ratios, and 65=2030 in overdrive, providing great mileage potential. IDK what I'll use all the other gears for, but I think I can figure something out.
I will continue to run the Eddies, and flat-tops and a Tight-Q. I'm gonna adjust the Scr, to make ~190psi, and as for the Solid-lifter FT cam; I think I'll run a 106 design, with fast ramps and tight lash, and a power peak at ~5200, so maybe around [email protected]; hyup I think I can make that work.
You see how I worked backwards from the gearing? For a streeter, it's all about trying to have the right gear at the right roadspeed,to be in the sweetspot of the TORQUE curve,in second gear cuz;
1) in first you will be smoking thru it anyway so you don't care about HP in first cuz even a 318 can do that. And
2) in second, you will almost never get to the power below 60 mph..... so why do you care about 450 hp at 5500, when even if you dare use 3.91s, this comes to ~75 mph with 27" tires!
With 3.91s, 60mph is ~4500, and so you should be thinking of maximizing your power at 4500!, not 5500.
So let's say that 450@5500 engine makes only 390hp at 4500, then you could build a 390Hp engine , that will have inherently more torque below the torque peak, and therefore make more average power, below 4500, and therefore should be quicker in the zero to 60 contest.
And with those 3.91s, 30mph with 27s comes to 3750 in first, 2220 in second. Now with matching cylinder pressure, you can run a lo-stall TC!,ans so.... Your rpm at 55 will be 2670@zero-slip, so say you run a 2600; yur all set!
No; you can't brag about your 450 hp Fire-Powered 1964 383 ; but who cares about that, if yur hitting 60 in the low 5s.
On the street,
it's all about the combo
So what started off as a look see may have turned into a full rebuild... but I may be leaning towards building a mean 318... we will see.
Oh I get gearing very well. It wasn’t part of the discussion of engine torque. Your trying to twist the Situation.If you don't understand how gearing works and it's effects on the total packed and relates to the hp and torque output to the wheels, then there little hope of you understanding.
And I know you kind of understand cause on another thread